The Great Gay Marriage Debate: Round Three

I've been following this debate and even read some of the Jim Kalb stuff that Dreher linked to. It seems to me that Dreher has politically damaged his own position here: Because he's a guy whom other serious writers take seriously (and answer on their blogs, which drives traffic to his), his apparent inability to explain his views just tends to prove how indefensible those views really are. If even Dreher can't make a reasoned case against gay marriage, who can?

Another thing that strikes me is that for all his (and Kalb's) inveighing against liberal modernism, Dreher is basically a liberal modern man himself. He talks about the need to submit to authority and tradition, but what does he ultimately do? He critically evaluates the religious tradition he's raised in (Protestantism), finds it wanting, submits to another where the authority seems stronger (Catholicism), but then continues to make his own judgments and so leaves that one too for yet another. Those are modern expressions of individualist thinking, indeed individual desire -- he goes where he feels most comfortable, presumably -- not antimodern deference to authority or custom. (So is constantly espousing your opinions, by the way. Real antimodernists don't do that, which is one reason you don't see a lot of blogging from the Amish.)

Finally, there's Dreher's total failure to acknowledge that the old, less liberal and less modern ways had any costs. It seems just to baffle him that liberal modernism has triumphed and become hegemonic; he writes as if the other ways weren't tried for centuries before being widely rejected. Not least of the reasons was that they led to religious wars. Unless we could somehow reorganize the world into little, isolated farming communities (in other words, all go Amish), there are going to be people with different traditions, commitments, worldviews, etc. continually bumping up against each other. The liberal order evolved as a way of managing that fact. I don't know if Dreher's thought through any alternative, but I get the impression that he hasn't -- that he thinks he can have the benefits of an advanced modern society while still somehow retaining the authority structures of the Carolingian Era. That this doesn't happen, he seems to think, is the fault of the liberal modern order, when in fact it's the other way around: The liberal modern order arose BECAUSE Dreher-esque submission to authority just doesn't work in the real world. Even Dreher himself can't do it.

Mr. Tinker, thanks for fighting the good fight.  But it's a fight you're fighting with logic and empiricism when the opposition is fighting with emotion and insecurity.  Of course Rod Mr. Dreher can't come up with a cogent argument against gay marriage.  Such an argument does not exist in a secular society with a civil justice system.

Mr. Dreher's fear of American moving on without him is a founded one, and I agree when you say it's that which motivates his opposition to gay marriage.  He fears socio-political obsolescence so he'll make a Custer-like stand about something just for the sake of doing so.Then he can feel brave in the face of a liberal onslaught he's rhetorically created.

Mr. Dreher knows perfectly well that gay marriage will have no net effect on anyone's morality or the strength of any heterosexual marriage.  He knows that two men deciding to marry should not make the religious any less so.  If gay marriage can rock the foundations of faith that much, they weren't honestly-built foundations to begin with, were they?

He knows all this, but he's decided that he needs to make the gay community wait while he petulantly has his full say.  It may be cloaked in the George Will-like haze of circumlocution and ten-thousand-dollar words, but it's petulance nonetheless.

What I find so sad is that Mr. Dreher is forcing us to wait while he and his adherents have these crises of political self-esteem.  In the meantime, gay folks will have to wait to have the rights constitutionally accorded to them in a secular society,  How absurd.

And, ultimately, how selfish.  

A P.S. to my comment above based on Rod Dreher's latest. In response to today's Iowa Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marraige, he is now providing some more detail about what he's actually afraid of, and it's not (as his critics have supposed) that somehow gay marriage will undermine straight marriage. At least, that's not what he's now talking about. The gist of his objection is contained in this comment: "The lawyer [I was speaking with] said that as soon as homosexuality receives constitutionally protected status equivalent to race, then 'it will be very hard to be a public Christian.' " Meaning, criticism of gay rights or gay marriage will become "discrimination" and "harassment" under the rules that currently get people into trouble at universities and other workplaces if they don't toe the PC line in those matters. (Dreher gives a number of examples.)

I agree that some of those rules are a nuisance and overly broad, and if our right-wing U.S. Supreme Court were good for anything it would get busy striking them down under the First Amendment. But what I find interesting here is how little Dreher seems to know about history, including religious history. Variants of his lawyer-friend's argument could have been and were made in every era since Christianity arose, because there has *always* been some equally dire threat to the authority of the Church and Scripture, something that faithful Christians and the leading doctors of the Church agreed was the loose thread that would unravel the whole skein. At various times, you were rejecting the "clear" teachings of the Bible, and therefore rejecting God, if you believed -- let alone legislated on the basis of the belief -- that the Earth is round and there are people on the other side of it, that it travels around the sun, that disease is caused by germs and can be fought with vaccination, that natural disasters are not God's judgment on evildoers, that slavery is wrong, that the "Negro" race is not inferior to the "Anglo-Saxon" race, that there were once dinosaurs, that the earth is more than 6,000 years old, that Hebrew is not the oldest language, that it's OK and even advisable to buy life insurance, and on and on.

Most of these ideas are now commonplaces, and almost no one but a few Creationist holdouts claims anymore that any of them are a threat to Christian faith. Today it seems obvious to faithful Christians like Dreher that you can get your kids vaccinated without disbelieving the Bible or challenging the fundamental authority of God. Yet the reverse was equally obvious to faithful Christians of past times. What has happened, over and over again, is that as the old views are scientifically discredited or socially discarded, "public Christianity" quietly redefines itself as not including them anymore. The Bible is quietly reinterpreted so that passages that once seemed to demand the old conservative reading no longer demand it; now they're just poetic metaphors or whatever.

This will happen with gay marriage too. Hence the future is not one in which opponents of equal rights for gays can't be public Christians; it's one in which it won't occur to public Christians that Christianity has anything to do with denying equal rights to gays. And they won't remember it ever did, unless they read history. Which is something Dreher really should consider doing.

Re: UPDATE: Damon, since you're straining to be fair to Dreher, you should really address the concrete fears that he HAS now articulated and that are a good deal more specific than the ill-defined, merely "temperamental" fears you impute to him. (My own attempt to address them is in the comments above.)

On Rod Dreher's blog, it's amazing how man people have posted responses vigorously disagreeing with his positions on same-sex marriage.  I'm heartened.

I think Mr. Linker is fair to be frustrated with Mr. Dreher's lack of a thorough response, but to be fair to Dreher's side, it faces the difficulty that almost all of the supporting premises underlying opposition to same-sex marriage have been overturned in our society.  Arguing against gay marriage now is a bit like arguing for public plebicites in a society that doesn't accept popular sovereignty or human equality.  To make a convincing case against gay marriage that would be compelling at all to advocates, you would have to first convince them, essentially, that everything John Paul II said in his Theology of the Body is true.

I think what really makes Dreher et al. afraid is that they may live in a society which is alien to them.  Because as a culture, we do have beliefs and principles that shape all our institutions.  We don't people to have polygamous families, or in many states to even buy unpasteurized/homogenized milk or have homes births with a midwife.  Even when certain things are allowed, culturally they can be so isolated that they eventually whither and die.  I think Dreher fears living in a society that finds his principles legally allowable but backward and discredited, where he might continue to live by them but where either his children or grandchildren will reject them because it is very, very hard to hold out against one's culture forever.  If you think Dreher's principles deserve to die out, then this won't seem like a problem; but there's something very natural to wanting your culture to reflect what you believe, and be able to be at home in it.

I see that Dreher has now answered the post above. His latest response -- or rather, a footnote to it -- inspires one other thought about what's driving his opposition to same-sex marriage. Damon, above, says it's ultimately a matter of temperament, and that Dreher has the kind of temperament that fears change. Maybe. But I'm also struck by how negative Dreher is toward his own commenters: He's continually warning them to be civil, to stick to the topic, to carry on the discussion in ways he approves of on pain of having their replies un-published, etc. Wow. I mean, what does he expect when he raises a contentious topic like gay marriage in an open forum, on the *internet* no less? If Dreher's objections to SSM do indeed arise out of temperament, perhaps the relevant aspect of his temperament is that he's a freakin' scold.

That said, there are non-trivial objections to SSM in the latest rounds on Dreher's blog. Not necessarily GOOD objections, but nontrivial ones that go beyond a fuzzy "it will undermine the institution of marriage." They include:

> Normalizing homosexuality means extending speech codes to cover it, which effectively means a ban on expressing "Christian" (that is, Dreheresque) views in the workplace.

> If marriage means anything, it means the right of a couple to procreate. But the only way for a gay couple to procreate is through some kind of genetic manipulation. That shouldn't be allowed, therefore you can't have both gay marriage and a universal right to procreate within marriage.

> Social changes frequently go much further than their advocates claim they will. What seems to them like a relatively small, incremental step forward turns out to be a social revolution. Thus, making divorce easier and removing stigmas from unwed motherhood didn't just readjust the old institutions but, in significant ways, collapsed them altogether (especially in some precincts, like urban ghettoes).

Again, rebuttable points, but at least they're specific objections and not strictly expressions of temperament.

Also, for those driven here from Dreher's blog, feel free to click on my name above for further details on "Why Conservatives are Always Wrong."   :-)

JSmith, not bad at all. I think you are touching on a newly enforced equal status to gays by the government on society. It is not so much a question of equal rights, but of equal status. If gays can have all of the protections of marriage via Civil Unions then there is no reason to force society to enforce an equal status on their relationship via marriage, which grew out of societies interest in the preservation of the family unit. Certainly the state can and should have enforced an equal status between mixed race marriages, since those unions are able to produce children. Essentially, the highest status in society is placed on married couples with children. This is how it should be. The orderly continuation of civilization depends on this.

This has nothing to do with prejudice, or hatred. Singles, married people without children, etc. are viewed by society as having lesser status. This manifests itself in many, many ways, from these people having a higher tax burden to societies viewing of such people. Shall we rectify this by exempting them from paying school taxes? Shall single people by choice fight for special legislation in order to get equal status and treatment by society?

Watering down marriage means watering down the status of a family with children.

blackton, I have no idea what you're talking about. How are rights different from status? Would it be acceptable to tell a racial minority, "You can have equal rights, but you can't have equal status"? Or to justify this by explaining that "society views you as having lesser status"? Applied to African-Americans, language like that would be out-and-out racism. (Just for starters, distinguishing the group in question from "society" is absurd; equal rights means recognizing that we are ALL "society," that group as much as anyone else.)

As to marriage having grown out of "society's interest in the preservation of the family unit," maybe -- or maybe it grew out of kinship-and-clan systems in which women were traded as property, which is what used to be seen as happening when the daughter of one man became the wife of another. At any rate, who cares what it grew out of? The caste system of India also grew out of something; should it be kept intact for all time? Even in a modern democracy? Your argument, applied there, amounts to saying that "Untouchables are 'untouchable' because society views them as not good to touch."

And to say that "If gays can have all of the protections of marriage via Civil Unions then there is no reason to force society to enforce an equal status on their relationship via marriage" is simply to beg the questions raised in the Iowa and other state Supreme Court cases, where justices examining these questions of rights and "status" have concluded that, yes, there ARE such reasons. If you can rebut those reasons, great, but it doesn't move the ball much just to claim they're not there.

Finally, there's a good explanation for everyone paying school taxes besides some notion of families with children having greater "status." It's the fact that everyone benefits from living in a society that educates its children. Single people depend as much as parents on a modern economy that requires a decently educated population. So that's not good evidence for this allegedly well-established "status" of married people.

Blackie - my wife and I have been married for three decades, but don't have kids. Once civil unions are established for people who want to cohabitate (hopefully for life, in my case) but not have kids, we'll be glad to switch over. It would give me a queasy feeling to be married with no desire or hope of having kids, while others with no hope or desire were relegated to something different, that might actually be perceived as a lesser status, by them, and by the married folks with children (I know that's not the intent, but it just might look that way to some people).

We were iffy on kids before we got married, so we probably would have chosen the traditional marriage, even if civil unions had been available back then, just to keep our options open. So, when civil unions are an established alternative, there will probably need to be an escape clause in wedding licenses for people who will need to switch over if they find out they're unable to conceive or adopt, or, like us, just decide that kids are not for them. I guess we need an opt-out for civil unions too, since some might decide after civilly unionizing that they want kids after all, and they'd need to be able go for the procreation option. (Was The Procreation Option a Ludlum book?) This would also allow gays to adopt, which I generally think is a good thing, provided the couple has made a lifelong commitment to each other - all they'd have to do is "de-unionize" then "marry".

Despite being childless, it has never occurred to us that we're being hard done by school taxes to educate other people's children. (And since Texas doesn't have an income tax, we pay a whopping property tax, most of it for schools we don't use.) We believe very strongly in a social compact - so much so, that we almost seem European - though perhaps "non-American" is a better appellation since it seems that every country on earth has a greater sense of social solidarity than the US does. I would gladly pay higher taxes to make Dallas's schools better - not only because it would benefit society as a whole, but also because, if Dallas could crack the nut of providing a quality education in an urban school district, our house would be worth a fortune, even in today's environment.

If benign discrimination against non-childbearers takes hold, the first thing we need is a better name than "non-childbearers." Naming is important - I think blacks might have been much happier with segregation if it hadn't been accompanied by racial epithets. It's harder to convince someone that he's not suffering discrimination if in the same breath you're referring to him with a demeaning sobriquet (or, should I say, a sobriquet he finds demeaning even though you didn't mean it that way at all). I propose "Barren People", which could be shortened to "BPs" and shortened further to "Beeps." The beauty part is that it's possible to imagine "Barren People" being used as a sort of slur, but by grabbing it on the front end, we'd co-opt it. Again, if blacks had called themselves the N-word first, it never would have become a slur, which would most likely have nipped a lot of racial discord in the bud. Sure, gays have defused "queer" by adopting it, but it would have been much better for them if they'd gotten there first, instead of having to try to redefine it after it had already been adopted as a term of non-endearment.

Finally, speaking as a Beep  (proposed motto: "We're here, we sleep through the night without being awakened by a crying child, we take vacations during the school year, we drive small cars that couldn't hold a large goalie, much less a whole team - Get Used to It!) - we try to contribute to the advance of civilization even without having kids. While it is certainly possible to view civilization as a hierarchy with valued contributors at the top and lesser contributors arrayed beneath them in various castes (wait, that word's too loaded), er, classes? (no, that sounds kind of like the British stuff we threw overboard a while back), umm, rankings? (very March Madness, but will the people in the lower brackets be oversensitive and interpret a lower rank as inferiority when it's clearly meant as no such thing?), well, whatever, what I'm trying to say is that while it's possible to view society as a hierarchy where some are more equal than others, it's also possible to view it as a collection of people who contribute in their own unique ways, some by having kids, and some by not having them. Like how some people say the world needs cardiologists and sanitation workers, engineers and people who teach engineering, Congresspeople and baristas, etc. Or, as my parents used to say (and sometimes still do), it takes all kinds of people to make the world go 'round.

Heterosexuality is better.  Discuss.

jsmith, no, you got me all wrong, I am simply trying (like you did in your previous post) to come up with specific objections and not strictly expressions of temperament. I am not saying I agree with what I wrote. I am in favor of gay marriage, and for that matter I am also accepting of plural marriages. I think it was a definite intrusion on the rights of Mormons that they had to give up a central tenet of their faith for entry into the union. The only objection I see to polygamy is public health issues, but as very few people will engage in it I see no reason why it should not exist.

My posting above was simply a thought exercise, could I come up with a rational against gay marriage not based on bigotry, and that was the best I could come up with. I have zero problem with being shown to be wrong. I am actually quite pleased to be taken to task.

To be absolutely honest, I think marriage should be kept separate, if people want it they can get it in church, but it should have no special consideration. I think civil unions should be the only legal norm. I was married in China via civil union, no walk down the aisle, no wedding dress, no fill in the Springsteen River verse. Church weddings can double as Civil unions, I have no problem with that, but it is the Civil Union only that is recognized, so in one sense I am not in favor of straight, gay, or plural marriages at all. If you want one, fine, if not that is ok too.

Geoff: Despite being childless, it has never occurred to us that we're being hard done by school taxes to educate other people's children.

I have a good friend, DINK who rails against every perceived slight. His wife never wanted children, and he was ambivilent about it when he was young, but now that he is past 40, he has decidedly mixed feelings. When he was younger he didn't care about the tax codes (partly because he didn't make enough) but now when he only seems to see the tax benefits and not the enormous expense of kids.

Proteus: Heterosexuality is better.  Discuss.

Well now, that all depends on how hot you are, doesn't it? For me, 3 20 year old, hot nubile women in bed is best sexually, but that ain't ever going to happen. While it might be best for me, I don't think it will be best for any of the young women.

Heterosexuality--the love of men for women and women for men--is a humanly better form of sexuality than same-sex love, and to apply the same terminology to both makes hash of that important truth.

In Canada, an argument against (now legal) gay marriage was that it would intrude on religious liberty, the right of the state to force churches (generic term) to perfrom marriage ceremonies violative of their tenets. The argument from reassurance was that that would never happen and the issue was one of civil rights for gay couples denied the right to marry. Churches would continue to do as they saw fit. But not the chruches in Basmania. In my country of the mind where churches are reliant on tax exemptions and a whole host of other governamentally sustained rights and privileges, don't they dare refuse to cary out gay marriages. If the analogy to racial segregation, separate but equal, say, or other things, is telling for the civil right of same sex couples to get married, then what churches do I see refusing to wed miscegenated couples? None! Why? Well for those reasons, they had better wed gay couples as well--at least in Basmania. So for my money, the Canadian opponents of same sex marriage were right as to what they were worried about, and I hope the day comes when they cannot refuse, on pain of sanction, to wed gay couples just as they cannot now refuse to wed mixed race couples, all other chuch criteria being satisfied.

...Heterosexuality--the love of men for women and women for men--is a humanly better form of sexuality than same-sex love, and to apply the same terminology to both makes hash of that important truth...

There is at least one small problem with this important truth, it's incoherent,

Good one, blackton, you "punk'd" me. It occurred to me after I replied that maybe you were saying the opposite of what you really believed, because I remember a blackton on these discussion boards who struck me as reasonable and not some kind of wingnut. But hey, how about *labeling* your thought experiment next time? As I get older I'm more and more easily confused.  ;-)

I doubt that men who love women will ever regard homosexual love as anything other than a sad and inadequate substitute for the real thing. For many of us, morality doesn't enter into it; religion doesn't enter into it (I'm an atheist); even society doesn't enter into it.  Human value does.  To be able to love someone so different from oneself as to be a member of another sex--an erotic and affective relationship in which both halves of humanity are involved-- strikes us a humanly richer and more complete form of love.  We can't accept same-sex relationships as an equivalent, or consider them worthy of the honorific "marriage."   Call them "civil unions" if you like, and give them the same legal effects and perquisites as the genuine article.  But calling them "marriage" implies equivalence, and there isn't any.  Heterosexuality is better.

Is not!

Shorter Proteus: "This is our word, we had it first.  Go get your own word."

Shorter Proteus:  Stop forcing us to proclaim that they're of equal value when we don't believe that they are.

Yes, I share Proteus' philosophy here, and it's why I object to the continued legal recognition of the Republican Party as a legitimate organization. I don't like being forced to proclaim that Republicans and Republican candidates are of equal value with Democrats when I don't believe that they are.

I think that a man who can't love a woman is psychosexually disadvantaged, cut off from what may be the best experience life has to offer, and one for which same-sex love is a poor imitation.  Proponents of gay marriage haven't bothered to argue otherwise:  they simply posit equivalence,  cite the Declaration of Independence and rest their case.  They'll have to do better than that if they want to win hearts and minds.

BTW, words are important.  Ask those gay activists who insist upon "marriage" as opposed to "civil unions."  They'll insist that they want the "social validation."  What, then, is the content of that "validation"--what is the message that they forcing society to convey?  Obviously, that man-woman love and same-sex love are equal in value, and that there's no reason to prefer one over the other.  Which I don't believe, and which I suspect that many readers of The New Republic don't believe either.

That's nice that you think that, Proteus. Do you have any, you know, evidence? Gays could presumably just as well argue that it's straight love that's the poor imitation and that it's heteros who are missing the best experience life has to offer. Could a way of testing such claims even be devised?

As to proponents of same-sex marriage winning hearts and minds, sheesh, look at the polling over the last 10 to 15 years: They're winning 'em with astonishing speed. It's hard to imagine how they could be doing better. According to Nate Silver's analysis at 538.com, at the rate opinion has been changing, half the states will be pro-SSM by 2012, by 2016 only the Deep South will be holding out, and by 2024 no state will have a majority opposed to SSM any longer. They're here, they're queer, they're getting married, get used to it.

Byt he way Proteus: Stop forcing us to proclaim that they're of equal value when we don't believe that they are.

I just love that Royal WE. Are you part of some kind of borg collective? Are you the Monarch of some minor heretofore unknown kingdom? If the answer is no, then please state accurately: Stop forcing me to proclaim that they're of equal value when I don't believe that they are.

To which I say: who the fuck is forcing you to do anything? Start an atheist church dedicated to spreading the Proteun word for all I care.

Actually, gay activists aren't asserting equivalence, let alone superiority, because they know it's an argument they can't win.  I'd love to hear them make it, though, since for me it's the only issue.

Proteus, of course they're asserting equivalence. What do you think the entire gay-rights movement is about?

Proteus, of course they can't win the argument with you, since you have already made up your mind no matter what they say, I am a bit astounded that you still expect people to make that argument to you. Might as well argue with a brick wall.

I am curious how if you accept that marriage is a civil contract (as are Civil Unions) then isn't equality before the law essential?

As I said, I was married in a Civil Union in China. That is all that is necessary before the eyes of the law. If both Civil Unions and Marriages are equal in legal standing, in time the terms shall mean the same, then who the hell cares what you think? In the end, your aversion to gay sex will just be a personal aspect relegated to your nature. If you then want to feel superior to gay people, well then go right ahead if it makes your life meaningful. But your aversion holds no higher claim to reason or logic. It is just your subjective feelings based on chemical reactions in your brain.

"To be able to love someone so different from oneself as to be a member of another sex--an erotic and affective relationship in which both halves of humanity are involved-- strikes us a humanly richer and more complete form of love." is just so much romantic drivel, hallmark card expressions of love. If I can love my dog why do you think it is such an extraordinary thing to love a woman? (you know, they are human too). Humanity is far more complex then this chinese fortune cookie yin-yang philosophy you are laying out.

You can be honest now, you are engaging in a thought experiment like I was above, aren't you? Trying to lay out some rational reason why gay marriage should be verboten. (verboten is a good Nazi type word, don't you think?)

1.  I think it's better to have one's hearing than to be deaf, but I'm not sure that I can "prove" it, other than to say that deafness deprives one of a range of experience that most human beings throughout history have found to be essential.  

2.  It's also worth noting that the overwhelming majority of the human population is straight and that the percentage of homosexuals appears to be in the  single digits.  Even if these facts were grounded wholly in culture, they would still have normative significance, but they are grounded in nature as well.

3.  Obviously, all forms of sexuality are not created equal.  Some we condemn as infantile or cruel; some we even criminalize.  The mere fact that a form of sexuality exists, is legal and "isn't going anywhere" doesn't entitle it to our reverence, let alone to the forced avowal that it's equal in value to the best that we know.

Way to completely avoid the central argument there proteus, which is equality under the law. Are you in favor of Civil Unions or not? If not, what possible reason can you have to deny a contract between two consenting adults? And if Civil Unions have the legal equivalence with Marriage, then your whole argument goes down the drain.

Not at all.  If you've read what I've written, you'll see that, in tandem with many people, I support civil unions and oppose gay marriage; and you'll also see the reasons why.  The distinction is important:  Ronald Dworkin wrote an entire essay in the NYRB arguing that it's unconstitutional to deprive gay couples of "marriage" and relegate them to "civil unions."   I disagree, but for me constitutionality vel non is not the ultimate measure of human value in any case.

The problem as you know very well is that Civil Unions as presently constituted are not of equal status as Marriage.

Civil Unions exist in only a handful of places: Vermont, New Jersey and Connecticut. California and Oregon have domestic partnership laws that offer many of the same rights as civil unions.

Vermont civil unions were created in 2000 to provide legal protections to gays and lesbians in relationships in that state because gay marriage is not an option. The protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and no federal protections are included with a Civil Union. Civil Unions offer some of the same rights and responsibilities as marriage, but only on a state level.

What about Domestic partnership? Some states and municipalities have domestic partnership registries, but no domestic partnership law is the same. Some, like the recently passed California domestic partnership law comes with many rights and responsibilities. Others, like the one in Washingtonoffer very few benefits to the couple.

What are some of the differences between Civil Unions and Gay Marriage?

Recognition in other states: Even though each state has its own laws around marriage, if someone is married in one state and moves to another, their marriage is legally recognized. For example, Oregon marriage law applies to people 17 and over. In Washington state, the couple must be 18 to wed. However, Washington will recognize the marriage of two 17 year olds from Oregon who move there. This is not the case with Civil Unions. If someone has a Civil Union in Vermont, that union is not recognized in any other state. As a matter of fact, two states, Connecticut and Georgia, have ruled that they do not have to recognize civil unions performed in Vermont, because their states have no such legal category. As gay marriages become legal in other states, this status may change.

Dissolving a Civil Union v. Divorce:

Vermont has no residency requirement for Civil Unions. That means two people from any other state or country can come there and have a civil union ceremony. If the couple breaks up and wishes to dissolve the union, one of them must be a resident of Vermont for one year before the Civil Union can be dissolved in family court. Married couples can divorce in any state they reside, no matter where they were married.

Immigration:

A United States citizen who is married can sponsor his or her non-American spouse for immigration into this country. Those with Civil Unions have no such privilege.

Taxes:

Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples.

Benefits:

The General Accounting Office in 1997 released a list of 1,049 benefits and protections available to heterosexual married couples. These benefits range from federal benefits, such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

But can’t a lawyer set all this up for gay and lesbian couples?

No. A lawyer can set up some things like durable power of attorney, wills and medical power of attorney. There are several problems with this, however.

1. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees. A simple marriage license, which usually costs under $100 would cover all the same rights and benefits.

2. Any of these can be challenged in court. As a matter of fact, more wills are challenged than not. In the case of wills, legal spouses always have more legal power than any other family member.

3. Marriage laws are universal. If someone’s husband or wife is injured in an accident, all you need to do is show up and say you’re his or her spouse. You will not be questioned. If you show up at the hospital with your legal paperwork, the employees may not know what to do with you. If you simply say, "He's my husband," you will immediately be taken to your spouse's side.

Even with lesbian and gay marriages being performed and recognized in some states, the Federal Defense of Marriage Law prohibits the federal government from recognizing gay and lesbian relationships. This puts gay and lesbian couples who are married in a legal limbo. How do they file their tax returns? Do they have to pay the tax on their partner’s health insurance? How do they fill out legal and other forms, single or married?

Creating Civil Unions creates a separate and unequal status for some of America’s citizens. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruled that creating a separate class for gay and lesbian citizens is not permissible and that is why they have voted that only marriage equals marriage. The precedent was set with Brown v. The Board of Education regarding segregation in public education. Ironically, Massachusetts marriage law went into effect on the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education.

The United States Constitution guarantees equality for all. As you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.

If Civil Unions were the same as Marriages before the law, then you can play around with your little semantic nicities all you want. I was married in a Civil Union in China that is recognized as a full marriage by the United States. Gays getting Civil Unions in the US are treated with less respect. That is just silly.

And a large measure of human value is how we are treated before the law, otherwise it is cheap sentiment. And in so much as your sentiment devalues gays, it is even far cheaper.

If you feel happy feeling superior to others based on sexuality, I don't care at all as long as everyone is equal before the law. But for you that is not the case, you seek to ratify your opinions using law. If you are in favor of an absolute equality between marriages and civil unions, then say so. And if you do, if you want to feel that placing your penis in a woman's vagina makes you superior, well then go right ahead.

1.  As I've said before, and will again, I think that a man who can't love a woman is humanly disadvantaged.  I'll go further:  I think that most people hold the same opinion.  Nothing in law or policy requires us to pretend otherwise.

2.  As I've also said before, I support civil unions, and would further support any changes in the law that would give them the same privileges and effects as marriage.

3.  If the mainstream gay community truly believes that same-sex love is as good as man-woman love, let them say so, boldly and explicitly.  I'd be interested to see them do that, and I'd be interested to see how the rest of the world responds.  I don't think that it will happen; but until it does, they'll continue to seek the results of equivalence (often by judicial fiat) without even bothering to argue equivalence.  They'll continue to play only to our pity and our fear of seeming politically incorrect.  I dislike the evasivenss and dishonesty of the process, and I dislike the thought control even more.

Point #1 Who the f cares? Humanity is composed of individuals, a gay person has zero reason to give the remotest shit about how you feel about him. And he or she would be right. Of course same sex love can be as good or better than opposite sex love, it entirely depends on the depth of the relationship between the two.

You claim to be an atheist, yet you talk with the certitude and value laden system of a fundie. If you are an  atheist then you believe that "love" is nothing more than a complex set of chemical reactions within the brain, if you can show me scientifically how the chemical reactions that exist in a straight person is superior to that of a gay person, then do so. Otherwise you are talking non scientific gibberish, it is irrelevant that a large majority agrees with it, it is still gibberish. Years ago people said interracial marriage was wrong, that any children produced would be hopelessly confused. Luckily the laws were overturned by the wisest among us, even though the vast majority were against it. In time people stopped caring, now of course we have a bi-racial president. In time we may even have a gay one. Iceland has an openly gay PM.

Now if you are not an atheist, then you can make an argument to higher truths. That doesn't mean that they will be right, who can truly know the mind of God? But at least there can be arguments that can be made.

So I state explicitly that if the chemical reactions between gays and straights are the same, then it is equal. Who cares how the world responds, science cares not for opinion or bigotry.

Now shall you disavow your atheism at this point?

As to myself, whatever consenting cognitive adults choose to do is their business. It is called free will. If it is bad for them, then they shall learn it soon enough, if however gay individuals find love and fellowship in life with another such individual, more power to them. For whatever reason, God or nature they came into life Gay. I see no earthly reason to stand between them (again I leave God out of this aspect since God has not told me his intentions).

I am actually pretty suprised that an atheist would be so beholden to old ways of thinking, I would think it would at least have some liberating aspects to being an atheist, to put aside old ways of thinking.

Being an atheist liberates one from all sorts of prevailing shibboleths.  It does attach one  to humanism, however, and I believe that man-woman love is humanly better.  Your depressing talk about "chemical reactions" does not persuade me otherwise.

Wait, you believe there is no God, that life essentially is a random meaningless accident, and you find talk about chemical reactions (in square quotes no less) depressing? OK. "Humanism" yeesh. It is fine if you define Humanism as to conform to your own narrowly conceived set of ideas. Man-woman love for you is better, fine. But for others it is apparently not. I have no problem with that. For the life of me I can't conceive why you would waste your time making an essentially useless argument. You argument is wholly subjective, devoid of science and reason, a byproduct of hallmark sentimentality and ego affirmation.

The religious argument I get, if you believe God wants you to be against gay marriage, and the book that you place your faith in confirms your belief (or gives it to you) then so be it. You gotta do what you think God wants you to do. Any non believers objections to gay marriage flounders on its own hopeless illogic, and your arguments rests completely on what you think, without a shred of evidence to support it. There are gay couples who spend a lifetime together, and straight couples where the man and woman divorce in a matter of months. You have countless instances of men killing wives in rage, jealousy (out of their own insane notions of what love is). Obviously a successful gay relationship is superior to a failed straight one. And to argue that a successful straight marriage is successful gay one is pointless. A gay person is not suited to have a successful straight one, so why make the argument? It is like having a stupid argument if it is better to be tall. Even if we can prove it is better in society to be tall I can not be any taller, all I can do is attempt to prove such conceptions are false, or I can simply decide I don't give a shit. I am 5:8, average height in the world, a little short in America. I am perfectly happy being 5:8. By the way I am also left handed. Everything is made for right handed people, but I also like being left handed. It has given me abilities that right handed people can't do. Do I obsess about either? Not at all, I simply accept what I am, and hope others do the same. Why can't you?

For all I know, masochists have the same chemical reaction that I have, and perhaps some of their relationships are more "successful" than others that aren't based on physical pain.  Nevertheless, I think it's better not to be a masochist, and I couldn't support a law proclaiming their sexual equivalence to everyone else.  The analogy is not meant to be exact, but is offered as an instance of judgment transcending "different strokes."  Call it bigotry if you like; I call it intellectual honesty.  Au revoir.